Neil wrote: "...those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ..." Wow, sounds like "works/statement" by your standards! Yet it comes from the WCF! Thus the absurdity (or hypocrisy): you accuse your own sect when you accuse Baptists of Arminianism on this ground
Neil; We appear to be going round in circles with this. I have already answered and explained this point 24hours ago post, 1/16/12 4:57 pm.
I guess you choose not to see my point.
Observer[/AUTHOR You have presented an incoherent explanation (the usual convoluted theological nonsense we hear from Presbys...
Oh I don't know Observer. It is completely Biblical and Coherent to the presbyterians, and predominated in ecclesia history from NT times up until 1521.
John UK wrote: Besides, see if you can arminianize this text:
Oh John you know very well I can't Arminianize Scripture. I am a good Biblical Calvinist after all. Remember that like faith, repentance is the gift of God. It is God who gives us a changed mind (Acts 5:31, 11:18; 2Tim 2:25). Paul confirms this - see Rom 2:4.
Hi Mike; The reason why anyone uses this kind of polemic is because they are subdued and beaten by the true Biblical arguement. So we really have to be sorry for him.
John UK wrote: Besides which, "the promise" is only to those who repent, not to those who are proxilogically penitent.
Oops sorry John I forgot about your Arminian slant on all things Biblical. The all to "human faculty" of repentance again eh?
BTW Very impressed by your newly invented word. I can see you are dedicated to the Baptist penchant for "rewrite" - viz rewrite history, rewrite confessions and now rewrite words when you can't find the Biblical. Well done John.
Neil wrote: I've never heard of a "Qualifying Emphasis" in Baptist doctrine
Baptist doctrine does not use every word in the dictionary Neil. I am merely using the terms to illustrate what you guys emphasise as part of your baptism doctrine. And "Paedobaptist chauvinist" - Interesting that the word "Chauvin" is the French for Calvin. So you can call me a good Calvinist if you will, after all he was a great servant of God, wasn't he.
John UK wrote: 1. So you are unwilling to baptise children of unbelievers, even though some of them will be elect. 2. Yet you are willing to baptise children of believers, even though some of them will not be elect.
1. You can't tell the elect from the little lion stamped on their foreheads John.
2. The promise is to them and their children John, as taught in one of your favourite verses, I recall.
Neil wrote: adult baptism using language almost identical to the Baptist Confession
Yes we baptise adults who are not covered by a Parental covenant.
But again - your "QUALIFYING EMPHASIS" (spoken ability of sinner) discriminates against the Covenanted believers children, - and emphasises the verbal statement to AUTHENTICATE the rite. It is the Baptist who depends upon a works/statement for a "successful" baptism - we do not!
Presby baptises the children of Covenanted parents trusting in God and His Word (promise) for such.
Let me expand further. Presby baptism - Paedobaptism - Relying wholly upon God for the ongoing inclusion of believers children into the Covenant.
Baptist baptism - The "qualifying emphasis" of the Baptists baptism rite is that the person MUST BE old enough to make a verbal contribution to the rite. Thus disqualifying the children of believers as being unable to participate by virtue of an act. This 'reliance' upon the statement of the evil hearted sinner to authenticate the baptism is an Arminian style pursuit.
The answer to your second point on 'who carries out' the baptism. As I said baptism is NOT dependant upon the person who administers the baptism; - If it were otherwise then all those non-elect reprobate pastors in your denomination, and others, would be delivering a false baptism.
Baptism; Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost"
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
Neil, notice the divine element of Biblical baptism.
Neil wrote: (1) So does this imply that Presbys never baptize adult converts? Or if they do, then how is it conducted in a way that does not run afoul of the alleged Baptist Arminian errors you describe?
(2) BTW, I can't resist adding that Charles Hodge argued that Catholic baptism is valid Christian baptism (implying no re-baptism req'd for Presby converts). So watch out: playing the â€śWho's the Crypto Catholicâ€ť game can go either way.
(1) Don't leave out the "qualifying emphasis" bit Neil!
(2) Baptism is not "dependant" upon the administrator of it as Calvin points out.
John UK wrote: I am wondering how this fits in with your "covenant children" theory. Only asking, that's all. Think not....
Hello John. Haven't seen you for ages where ya bin?
Re "Covenant Children" ~~
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)
Observer wrote: Of course you know that the WCF teaches baptismal regeneration
Baloney!! Thats not very observant of you is it Observer.
Roman Catholics are elevating baptism by giving it the power of regeneration. The other denomination which elevates baptism is of course the Baptist church. Denying the children of believers, (thus distrusting God and His Word) and consequently giving a qualifying emphasis to the Arminian style "statement" of a depraved evil hearted sinner. This "qualifying emphasis" upon the human act, to bring about the baptism, and its end result, brings the hypothesis of the papist and the Baptist into very close liason of ideologies.
piqued my interest wrote: I am aware that there is a deeply felt need on the part of some Presbys to rewrite history. But hopefully there are enough of us interested in history to check their attempts.
Very funny!! Considering Baptist "anything" didn't start until the year 1521 it is amazing that your average Baptist can make a statement like this without sheer embarrassment. Immersion was an old Roman Catholic heresy from which they developed baptismal regeneration. Now giving baptism all this extra power and authority - it is no surprise some folks built a church out of it. Previous to 1521 and the anabaptist heresies which emerged at that time, nobody questioned infant baptism.
I wonder how much of Baptist modern written history previous to 1521 is plagiarism?? After all ecclesiastical history before 1521 doesn't have much if any debate on "infant" nor "sprinkle/effusion" or an alternative for it.
John. What have you done? What did you say to get the thread "Jesus name ruled 'unconstitutional' closed? Here I am trying to get you poor misguided Baptists to understand the Bible doctrines better (not to mention the parts of history you keep trying to rewrite) - and you get the thread closed. What am I going to do with you??
Anti-Paedobaptism as practiced by Baptists, is a relatively new theory which was not practiced by the early church. Again we observe baptism doctrine being changed in 1521 - not before.
Quote; "Fortunately, however, the Christian Gospel was still preserved --especially in Northern Europe. In 1377, the English 'Pre-Reformer' John Wycliffe (1324-84) assailed the Romish mass.41 In 1402, the Wycliffite Huss did the same in Bohemia.42
Neither of them ever questioned infant baptism. To the contrary, Wycliffe declared: "On account of the words in the last chapter of Matthew [28:19], our church introduces believers who answer for the infant....
"The child of a believer is carried into the church to be baptized, according to the rule of Christ." Yet "it seems hard...to assert" like the Romanists, "that this infant will be lost" if dying unbaptized. Nevertheless, "without a doubt, infants are duly baptized with water." [URL=http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/index.html]]]Anabaptists and their stepchildren. F.N.Lee.[/URL]
nb. Also noted in this study by Lee, is that immersion was originally started by parts of the early Roman church as a lead into baptismal regeneration.
Lurker wrote: What God ordained in Genesis 17 has been surpassed by the new covenant
Nope! Can't agree with that Lurker. The Covenant of Grace covers the entire Scripture. Yes Jesus came and changed parts of it, but for example He did not change the age at which the sign and seal of the Covenant may be administered iaw Gen 17. As Jesus teaches not one jot or tittle is to be removed from the OT laws.
BTW I'm worried about you Baptists in that you are rejecting the Covenant of God, by not trusting God with your children. God must be angry at the fact that in your doctrine you refuse to trust in Him sufficiently, to bring your infant children into Covenant with God as ordained by Him in the OT. You cannot ignore the teachings of the OT as if they were irrelevant.
By forcing upon your children this Arminian idea to wait until they can verbally confess, is putting a greater onus upon the children and demonstrating a lack of faith in the parents. Making the verbal confession a basis of authenicity for baptism reflects greater emphasis on all things human, whilst revealing a lesser trust in God to bring the child into Covenant. Is this not disobedience of God and a form of attack upon His grace?
The presby trusts in God implicitly for his family
Infant children of believers have as much evidence of purity as adult converts: they are considered to be holy to God and Kingdom-possessors, they are spoken of as having faith, and many other such things. 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy
Luk 18:15-17 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus
Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
Yet todays Baptist church would discriminate against such as these - EVEN JOHN THE BAPTIST.
Baptists only biblical wrote: 1. baleful effects in Christian history
2. departure from Scripture
3. It was the open door through which the unregenerate world flooded into the Church
4. the ideal of a pure church vanished
5. Without infant-baptism there never would have been a Catholic church
6. the Christian world would have been different
7. Baptists believe that these indisputable historical effects
1. Paedo-Baptism is the original Biblical method of baptism and since NT times is the sign and seal which GOD Himself ordained from Genesis 17. 2. Paedo-Baptism IS the Scriptural method of baptism in accordance with the command of God which Jesus never never rescinded. 3. Jesus proves this to be utter fallacy in Matt 7:21-23 illustrating that non-Christians call Him Lord, Lord. Thereby demonstrating that the church will be composed of Christian and Non Christian. 4. There never ever was or could be a "pure" church in a fallen world. 5. Another ridiculous fallacy emanating from ignorance of history. 6. I see that you leave God out of the Church militant. 7. As per usual we observe the Baptists REWRITING history to stitch their own FICTIONAL history pre 1521 into where it never was. You Baptists have a problem with truth!
John; Do you honestly think that baptism has more power than God, Christ and the Holy Spirit in church building? This is the implication of the "Bob" and his McGlothlin post below.
History records that paedo baptism has been used by God to effectively build His Church for millennia. Whereas deep water combined with Arminian style confession basis baptism only arrived in the 16th century. AND definitely has not built a "perfect" church which "Bob" implies. Simple logic demonstrates that fact.
"Bob" quote; "the open door through which the unregenerate world flooded into the Church and finally overwhelmed it"- Ever heard of sin? Ever read "there are none righteous not even one"?? Have you Baptists found out yet that this is a fallen world? God Christ and the Holy Spirit build the Church in a fallen world, they save "sinners" NOT BY BAPTISM!!! Baptismal regeneration doesn't work. Got that?
Christ did not die upon the cross FOR BAPTISM. The human ceremony of deep water and verbal confession does NOT CAUSE REGENERATION.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Baptists reject infant baptism because it isn't biblical.
Jim Even though you are wrong at least your post has a more credible and mature statement. The concept expressed in "baptist only biblical" below puts baptism higher than God, Christ the Holy Spirit and the Bible - in that it infers that baptism has the divine powers to create a perfect church.
Anyone, baptist or other, agreeing with that hypothesis has to be at least Liberal-Pelagian or just plain heretic. Ad hominem prevents me from a more profound accusation of the post.
Baptists only biblical wrote: "Baptists reject infant-baptism because of its baleful effects in Christian history. Hardly any other departure from Scripture teaching has been so prolific of evil. It was the open door through which the unregenerate world flooded into the Church and finally overwhelmed it. The whole of society poured into the Church through this door, all distinction between the Church and the world disappeared, the ideal of a pure church vanished, church discipline ceased ; henceforth the world and the Church were identical. Without infant-baptism there never would have been a Catholic church and the whole history of the Christian world would have been different. Baptists believe that these indisputable historical effects constitute a sound reason for rejecting the practice."
What a sad and extremely naive and immature unBiblical statement. Again we see the rejection of Scripture.
If this is the best of Baptist theology on the subject which they have made the 'rock' of their church, then I am not in the least surprised at the erroneous remarks made on here to support them.
Praise be to the Lord that He brought me into Biblical Calvinist Presbyterian theology to serve His Son in sound doctrines. Amen!
Lurker wrote: I've often wondered, Presby. Is there anyone on this forum, with the probably exception of RP, which you honestly consider a brother or sister in Christ?
Lurker; Happy new year! There are so many brothers and sisters who come on site, and those who may only read, that I try to reach with real Bible exegesis, exposition and sound doctrine. Like yourself, John and Mike who I've been trying to teach correct doctrine to over the years. I'll just have to keep trying. Your question brings to mind the debate of Whitefield and Wesley.
(1) Baloney!! The baptist religion was only invented in 1521. And your statement does not do justice to the Biblical doctrines of election and the Sovereignty of God. Also if you consider the Covenant sign and seal which was given to Abraham and his seed - you are rejecting an actual saving work of God amongst His people.
(2) You are wrong here also! Again you are cutting God out of the picture and assuming the "works" based ceremony of the baptist are sufficient unto salvation. You are similar to the Roman Catholics who believe in baptismal regeneration. - Your version would be "Baptist-baptismal only regeneration."
Baptism is the sign and seal of our Covenant of Grace with God. In this respect it is the same as circumcision.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism wherein also ye are risen with him...."
John UK wrote: "Our children, before they are born, God declares that he adopts for his own when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. In this promise their salvation is included."
Aaaawww poor John. Still having trouble with the english language? Here is some help for you to understand the Biblical teaching of Baptism.
"In his most renowned work, Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin takes up this issue endeavouring to prove that infant baptism is a divine institution(Wendel 324). Calvin declares that "infants cannot be deprived of it[baptism] without open violation of the will of God"(Inst.4, 16, 8). He reasons this primarily through paralleling circumcision and baptism, asserting that Scripture testifies to the fact that baptism is for the Christians what circumcision was previously for the Jews(Inst.4, 16, 11). This essay will undertake the task of manifesting the coherence, profundity, and thoroughness of Calvin's reasoning, while illuminating the congruence of his arguements with Scripture." [URL=http://www.reformedtheology.ca/baptism.html]]]Infant Baptism. Rev Bryn MacPhail[/URL]
John UK wrote: just have a read through the 1689 Baptist confession, or even the inferior wcf, and you will find out
Amazing isn't it.
The 17th century Baptists "borrow" the information in the Westminster Confession of Faith to write their 1689 version - YET here we see a baptist condemning it as quote "inferior"???
Some Christian eh???
All that water they insist on using might mean he has water on the brain cell!!
1689 Baptist Confession... "It was based upon, and drew its inspiration from the Confession drawn up by the Westminster Assembly of Divines a generation earlier, and indeed differs only from it in its teaching upon those matters, such as baptism, the Lord's Supper, and church government, upon which among the Reformed churches the Baptists differ from the Presbyterians."
Baptists try to rewrite history by knitting themselves into it, rewrite the Greek for baptizw and rewrite the Confession - AND have the audacity to castigate the true Biblical Presbyterian Church. Desperate measures for such a very young church!!